Author
Topic: Baptism Question (Read 11843 times)

Fwiw, I wasn't required to get a baptismal certificate when I was chrismated, though the priest did ask me to get a copy if I could.

Augustine

Thank you for the very detailed (and yet concise) review. It seems like a lot of reading must have gone into that little condensed bit! I only have one question, you mentioned conditional baptisms performed by Catholics, but I also believe that Orthodox sometimes do this, and I'm curious what you think of that? The place that I remember this from is a hagiographical text in which a woman (I think) was at a monastery and wasn't sure if she had ever been baptized, and someone came to her in a dream and told her to tell the priest to look at such-and-such a canon, which allowed for conditional baptisms in a case like hers. Apparently, the priest looked and did find the canon--at least in the story.

Fwiw, I wasn't required to get a baptismal certificate when I was chrismated, though the priest did ask me to get a copy if I could.

While I'm sure the Priest here had no reason to doubt you were baptized by your previous church, this strikes me as "playing it loose" even within the parameters of the "extreme economy" which the SCOBA Churches are accustomed to practice (which basically imitates old Russian practice). This becomes doubly apparent when, as far as I've been told, if there is doubt about someone who is apparently Orthodox being in fact Baptized, there are rules dictating that he is to be Baptized (even if there is a danger of giving him two Orthodox Baptisms). For example, if a 6 month old child is dropped off at an orphanage in Greece in an ostensibly "very religious" area and there are no witnesses to the effect the child is Baptized, he must be Baptized anyway...even if one could conjecture "hey, he probably was Baptized."

Quote

Thank you for the very detailed (and yet concise) review. It seems like a lot of reading must have gone into that little condensed bit!

Being a "Church enthusiast", it's a topic I've read a lot on, and recently even more so. It almost rolls off the tongue (or keyboard) by rote now.

Quote

I only have one question, you mentioned conditional baptisms performed by Catholics, but I also believe that Orthodox sometimes do this, and I'm curious what you think of that? The place that I remember this from is a hagiographical text in which a woman (I think) was at a monastery and wasn't sure if she had ever been baptized, and someone came to her in a dream and told her to tell the priest to look at such-and-such a canon, which allowed for conditional baptisms in a case like hers. Apparently, the priest looked and did find the canon--at least in the story.

My understanding is that there are canons for "when in doubt" - but they don't call for "conditional Baptism", but just "plain ole' Baptism". What I do know is that such practices have popped up in some Slavic countries (and perhaps elsewhere), but this was due to the influence of Roman Catholicism, where the practice in fact originated. Thus it's credentials as an "Orthodox practice" are poor, and insisting that this form must be used (and not simply doing what the Church has always done in cases of doubt) is an even poorer position to take.

Is it possible that by "conditonal baptism" what is meant in the story is simply "Baptism just in case" like I've mentioned? Either way, the practice within Orthodoxy of using the Roman Catholic formula is relatively new, provincial, and ultimately hinges (at least in part) upon a different understanding of the sacraments than the Church has both theoretically and practically possessed. The sacrelige of trying to "Baptize someone twice" is in the intentions, not in the rite itself - it's not as if you're going to force "God to show up twice" to renovate the person being so Baptized if it turns out you were wrong and they had in fact been given an Orthodox Baptism. It's not as if the sacraments are a form of crude magic; they're essentially synergistic acts, like the Prophet Elijah raising his hands and asking God's Fire to descend from the Heavens.

I was baptized Episcopalian but just this past Saturday, I was BAPTIZED into the OCA. I was told that baptizing Protestants is the practice of the entire Diocese of the West of the OCA.

Interesting...but not too surprising considering how His Grace +Tikhon tends to be more conservative on average in the OCA. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I say interesting more since I think he has posted on the Indiana List or elsewhere in the past that he does not differ from OCA (or SCOBA - whatever) guidelines. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I know that at my (OCA DOW) parish that I have only seen a few Chrismations period - which include many of mainstream Protestant confessions as well as some former RCs.

Considering your pleasant feelings toward your recent events, I wouldn't worry about it as it would just cause unnecessary scandal.

As I have noted previously on various forums here, the decision to apply or not apply economia lies with the Bishop as the Archpastor of his diocese. I see nothing His Grace Bishop Tikon did as scandelous or unusual, he simply exercised his apecial Charism as a Bishop to determine that baptism instead of chrismation would be done in this case. As he is a former Baptist, I am sure he has a good understanding of the various protestant denominations practice and actually believe in order to make the economia decisions necessary for the best of his flock.

I was baptized Episcopalian but just this past Saturday, I was BAPTIZED into the OCA. I was told that baptizing Protestants is the practice of the entire Diocese of the West of the OCA.

I'm with Elisha in that I don't want to cause you unnecessary consternation on this issue.

I, like Elisha, am also in the OCA Diocese of the West, and I am not aware of any diocese-wide practice of rebaptizing Protestants. My priest will not baptize any former Protestant who can provide official verification of a baptism that the Orthodox Church can accept as valid upon reception into the Church, but I believe our two sister OCA-DOW churches in town would prefer to rebaptize Protestants. I am aware that Bishop Tikhon would personally prefer to rebaptize all Protestants but that he has chosen to submit to official OCA guidelines on this matter.

Well I'm not concerned or anything about the fact that I was rebaptized. I agree with Bishop Tikhon that Protestants should be received through baptism.

One thing though: It is possible that the reason many OCA-DOW parishes chrismate mainstream Protestants is the age of said Protestants. This came up between my priest and I when I met a former Episcoplian who had been received through chrismation at the OCA parish in Tacoma, WA. My priest said that a major part of the reason that ekonomia was not exercised in my case was because most converts these days are in their 40's or 50's and were thus "baptized" in mainline Protestant churches BEFORE all the theological craziness of today. I, however, was "baptized" in 1988, well after things had gone belly up in the Episcopal Church. So, maybe in the years to come baptizing of mainline Protestant will become more and more common...

Well I'm not concerned or anything about the fact that I was rebaptized. I agree with Bishop Tikhon that Protestants should be received through baptism.

Well, I think Elisha and I both said that even though Bishop Tikhon would prefer that Protestants be "re"baptized, His Grace has chosen to submit to official OCA guidelines that Protestants be received via Chrismation alone if their Protestant baptisms can be considered valid upon entry into the Church. It appears that Bishop Tikhon hasn't really asserted his own will on one side or the other, allowing priests in his diocese to follow both practices.

I really don't think age is a factor, either. If it is, then it certainly isn't the only factor, since I was received via mere Chrismation at the age of 25 nine years ago.

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I, however, was "baptized" in 1988, well after things had gone belly up in the Episcopal Church. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š So, maybe in the years to come baptizing of mainline Protestant will become more and more common...

Meaning no disrespect here, but I've been Anglican/Episcopalian since 1975 or so and to say that things had gone "belly up in the Episcopal Church" a while before 1988 is inaccurate and unfair. There were things happening and people with different things going on in some places, but there was and is still a goodly section of solid Christians in it.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

While I'm sure the Priest here had no reason to doubt you were baptized by your previous church, this strikes me as "playing it loose" even within the parameters of the "extreme economy" which the SCOBA Churches are accustomed to practice (which basically imitates old Russian practice).

The question I have is what if you are called to Holy Orders and were baptized outside of the Orthodox Church? From EVERY source I have checked on, you must be baptized in the Church to be called to Holy Orders. So, converts who were baptized outside the Church cannot become Priests or Deacons then?

PanagiotisA convert

Logged

"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"-Ludwig Von Mises